Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54

Pray TV

Pray TV Bu makale, PrayTv olarak da bilinen 2020 Ağustos Ay'ın da . Muhammet Emre AYDIN. Tarafından Kurulan ve Dünya üzerin de reklamsız yayın yapan İnternet Televizyonu .Pray TV , Geçtiğimiz Ağustos Ay'ın da kurulan ve yayına başlayan İnternet Televizyonunun ilk dizisi Akif adlı yapımıdır.

Açıklama PrayTV, 2020 yılında Pray Medya çatısı altında kurulan, gerçek zamanlı veri akışı ve video on demand aracılığıyla internet üzerinden hizmet veren bir medya sağlayıcısıdır. Bilgisayar, mobil cihazlar ve akıllı televizyonlar üzerinden erişilebilen uygulama, canlı televizyon yayınlarının yanı sıra film, dizi, spor, yaşam ve yetişkin türlerinde yerli ve yabancı içerikler sunmaktadır.

PrayTV'nin ilk orijinal internet dizisi 2020 tarihli Akif adlı yapımdır. PrayTV'nin diğer yayınlandığı orijinal içerikler ise şunlardır;

Ferman (2020) - Yayınlanıyor Susma (2020) - yayınlanıyor Ormanda 5 Dakika (2020) - yayınlanıyor şşşşş (2020) - yayınlanıyor Yağmurlu Bir Günde (2020) - yayınlanıyor Aşığım Sana (2020) - yayınlanıyor Sevemez Kimse Seni (2020) - yayınlanıyor Duydun mu ? (2021) - yayınlanacak Yarım Kalan Şeyler (2021) - yayınlanacak Tehlikeli Çete (2021) - yayınlanacak İtiraf (2021) - yayınlanacak Abisinin (2022) Yayınlacak Welcome To Bağcılar (2022) - Yayınlanacak --176.219.8.88 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)--176.219.8.88 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)--176.219.8.88 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)--176.219.8.88 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not have an article about PrayTv or Pray Medya, so it would not be appropriate to list it on the Pray TV disambiguation page. If the company or brand is notable then you could write an article for creation which, if accepted, could be listed on Pray TV. Certes (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Angel (band)

Following the requested move of Angel (American band), I retargeted the original title Angel (band) to Angel (disambiguation). However, that obviously broke some 150 incoming links, so I'd ask for assistance of a kind soul equipped with AWB or something to retarget them. Meanwhile, perhaps it would be prudent to temporarily retarget Angel (band) to the original article? No such user (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If someone has checked links to Angel (band) and fixed any which are not about Angel (American band), this could be a good job for Usernamekiran's bot 4. Certes (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, this Angel band is the most famous among namesakes, and its article was created back in 2004, so I'm pretty sure links were all OK before the move. No such user (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done - I've AWB'd most of the links. There are a couple that need disambiguation because it was unclear which topic was intended, and so I've tagged those. There were also 3 templates that needed correction, so some of the incoming links are just a caching problem that will clear itself up. -- Netoholic @ 13:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Overlapping dabs

The Public Eye (disambiguation) and Public Eye (disambiguation) should probably be combined. MB 04:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 Done PamD 07:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Other opinions

A stalemated discussion at talk:Imperial#"Imperial" and "United States customary" would benefit from other opinions. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename company page

This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesars_Entertainment, needs to be renamed from Caesars Entertainment to something like Caesars Entertainment Associated Brands. The wikipedia page that is showing up for Caesars Entertainment is Harrah's Entertainment which should not be happening. Tawatson15 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15: "Caesars Entertainment" is an ambiguous term which correctly leads to a disambiguation page listing the companies which are or were known by that name. I've changed the redirect "Caesars Casino" to lead there too. Several other terms mentioning Caesars still redirect to Harrah's Entertainment. Some of those should may refer to the Harrah's era but others might need to be retargeted to the dab or to Caesars Entertainment (2020) (formerly Eldorado) which bought the Caesars name and brand. Certes (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Certes: Caesars Entertainment's page should look like Harrah's Entertainment's page. The problem with Harrah's Entertainment is Harrah's Entertainment is not the correct name of the company. Someone changed the wikipedia pages when Caesars Entertainment merged with Eldorado and became a bigger company but the brand, Caesars Entertainment, stayed the same. They retained their name. Caesars Entertainment should be renamed to something different and the Harrah's Entertainment page should be renamed to Caesars Entertainment. Harrah's Entertainment can have its own page with less text describing what it was before it was renamed to Caesars Entertainment. Tawatson15 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a subject expert. It may be worth discussing this somewhere more specific, possibly Talk:Harrah's Entertainment as it's an established article with many page watchers, or starting a move request. Certes (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The present arrangement is result of this discussion at Talk:Caesars Entertainment (2020)#Requested move 19 July 2020. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Set index articles

Does this project keep track of set index articles? Should {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} be placed on talk pages of such articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No and no, though they're related topics. Some of us look at both, but they need different approaches. For example, tools such as the Disambiguation pages with links report exclude SIAs because they have no equivalent of WP:INTDAB to distinguish intentional links from errors. Certes (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear answer. So if I remove {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} from the talk page of a set index article, is there any other template to replace it with? There are a lot of these by the way. On a related note, a lot of projects seem to use Disambig-Class for SIAs. Is this appropriate or would List-Class be better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
My main expertise with SIAs is in fixing links that shouldn't go there rather than improving the SIAs themselves. Category:All set index articles with links needing disambiguation aids our attempts to apply disambiguation techniques to SIAs, and hundreds of other SIAs could join that category. (I'm currently working through Given names.)
As for the main question, I don't see a direct replacement. Set index article templates go in mainspace, and WikiProject Sia is about a singer. Many talk pages already have other templates, e.g. Talk:Alligator lizard has {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, so {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} could simply be removed. It may be worth asking WikiProject Lists whether they'd like {{WikiProject Lists}} added instead. If not, and if something has to go there (it probably should), then the SIA might fall within a topic wikiproject, or we could use ({{Talk header}} as a last resort.
WP:SIA says that a set index article is a type of list article, so I'd go with List-Class. Certes (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Some WikiProjects allow |class=sia, see Category:SIA-Class articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirects tagged with WikiProject Disambiguation

I am tracking these at Category:Redirects tagged as disambiguation pages. This category is still populating - I estimate there will be several thousand eventually. My understanding is that none of these are dab pages so the banner should be removed. Shall I try and find a bot to do this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot request filed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 81#Redirects identified as disambiguation pages. Please comment there if you have anything to say — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankie Howard, Frankie Howard (footballer), Frank Alden "Frankie" Howard, Frankie Howard (comedian) and Frankie Howerd

An extended discussion at Talk:Frankie Howard (footballer)#Requested move 16 October 2020 regarding proper disambiguation of these names may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Find disambiguation pages for a specific category

Hi. Does anyone knows if you can use Wikidata/PetScan etc. to find disambiguation pages in a specific category? For example: All US-related pages in Category:Place name disambiguation pages? Thanks. --- Løken (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If you literally want disambiguation pages in a specific category, just intersect All disambiguation pages with that category. However, a property such as "US-related" is harder. Lots of pages such as A Mountain are US-related but contain no machine-readable clues to that (other than parsing state names, which gives false positives with Georgia etc.). Also, many pages disambiguate US places from non-US places with similar names, so any US-related marker would apply to individual entries rather than the page as a whole. Certes (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages shouldn't be in/under content categories. You might be able to use talk page (wikiproject) categories e.g. Category:Disambig-Class United States articles to find dab pages that include items of a particular topic, but I suspect it'd be very incomplete. Why do you want to find such pages? DexDor (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. It is just for a project on noWP, were I like to create the disambiguation pages related to US cities. I will try to use the wikiproject categories for this. Thanks again. --- Løken (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Make links to disambiguation pages orange by default. — Rod talk 17:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SIA and similar DAB

Trenchant has just four entries - three ships and a person. The three ships are also listed in SIA HMS Trenchant. This seems like needless duplication. Shouldn't the ships be removed from the DAB and replaced with one "See also" link to the SIA? But that technically leaves a 1-entry dab. MB 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't considered a redirect hatnote on a SIA, but that seems like a reasonable solution. However, I found French mathematician not listed on the dab, so now there are two people. MB 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
A redirect hatnote on a SIA looks attractive, but new incoming links intended for a person or individual ship may sit undetected. Certes (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
...which is not too bad: the 14 other HMS SIAs with redirects (
) had just 19 bad links. Certes (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiData: Structure data: (Q...) Labelling headers

Statement: Autodidact tutorial research investigation into tagging Disambiguatian pages with Structured data resulting in opening the door to the 21st century. Paptilian, PpT'lln ,  ( P. sig'd   ).. 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paptilian: Most disambiguation pages and the articles linked in their entries already have associated Wikidata items (listed in the left sidebar). Are you announcing some new Wikimedia project, or using autodidact in its normal English sense? Certes (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I am autodidact learning and this is an Autodidact tutorial test. Looks like I passed.Paptilian, PpT'lln ,  ( P. sig'd   ).. 14:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RM notification

An editor has requested for Muse (disambiguation) to be moved to Muse. Since you had some involvement with Muse (disambiguation), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Whether or not to move depends mostly on the question if a) Muses (the ancient Greek goddesses) is the primary topic, or b) Muses and Muse (band) are comparably significant, and there is no primary topic. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Kobenz (Austria) Kobenz (Musician)

Hello,

I’m currently working on my first article. Upon looking to start writing about dark & alternative art/artists, I came across a musician with the same name as a large city in Austria. The artist comes up before the city when searching via Google, and then the two start to mix. It seemed as though this is a notable occurrence, I do not know how I would cite something like this though. The artist is verified, has critic reviews, interviews, and publications, however the article was moved back to draft space as it needs more sources. How can I cite this occurrence and disambiguate the two? Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Notablepeopleandplaces: I would finish the article first, with a title like Kobenz (musician) (small "m"). If you then think it deserves to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then start a move request on the Talk page (see WP:RM). If the musician is more popular or more significant than the place, the article about the place could be moved to Kobenz, Austria (not (Austria)) or a similar title (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
All good advice but, before bothering to write the article, please check that Kobenz is notable enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Certes (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud upon reading MUSICBIO. I would say the artist fits criteria by the bare minimum, however, what appears to be only speculation (nothing fully evident or rumor based) that he is releasing songs with three highly notable entities “Kim Bullard”, “Katie Rose”, and “Lil Tracy”. I have decided that, I will continue to work on this person because I do believe that they are of interest and are more relevant then the geographic region. However, I would personally like to wait until I see one of these rumored releases, before resubmission. Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Edible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

And have tidied up Edible (disambiguation) somewhat. PamD 15:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Spawn - primary topic

I came across the Spawn DAB page, and the first thing that struck me was that Spawn (biology) was way down the list. Surely this is the primary topic? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My instinct was to agree. Or at least to move it to the top of the dab page as allowed for in MOS:DABORDER, bulletpoint 2, as "where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target". To my surprise (why do I continue to be surprised by our readers?) I find that page view counts show that Spawn (comics) has consistently much higher pageviews than any of the other meanings I tried in the pageview counter - Spawn (biology) seems to come second, the others trailing insignificantly. Over 90 days the "(comics)" averages 1556 views/day, the "(biology)" 211, and the others that I checked were 31 and below. I still think it might be more appropriate as a single entry at the top before the sections, not least as it's the original sense from which the others derive... so will WP:BOLDly move it to there right now (... done, and some tidying up too). But it's definitely not the Primary Topic. I am not a comics reader/viewer and had never heard of the comics character. PamD 15:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, PamD. Yes, after moving on to other things it did strike me in retrospect that comics might be more popular, and I should have thought of looking at the page count! But I think what you've done makes sense, so thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Can, Cans, CAN, CANS

Anyone interested in looking into this? Four separate pages for what are essentially variations of the same term seems a bit excessive. And with the possible exception of CAN as an initialism, none are especially long. Too much for me to process at the moment. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It makes sense to merge Cans into Can, as the majority of entries on Can can appear in the plural, and if Cans were expanded with all of them, it'd be a near-duplicate of Can. As for CAN and CANS – these are not singular and plural, they're different acronyms, without any overlap: a reader searching for "CANS" isn't going to be interested in any of the content in CAN. – Uanfala (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:DABNAME recommends A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM.. Some might argue that WP:SMALLDETAILS could apply here, but I wonder how many other cases are there where there are separate disambiguation pages for words and initialisms. older ≠ wiser 19:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
      • We could have a bot generate a list. BD2412 T 21:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I thought that bit of DABNAME applies only to cases where both "Arm" and "ARM" are disambiguated on the same page. But whether they be disambiguated jointly in the first place is a judgement call. Here, I don't have preferences about CAN ~ Can, but a merge can certainly work well (especially for the readers who are looking for the acronyms but don't bother typing in caps). If the resultant dab page is organised sensibly (with a separate section for objects, which can all be pluralised), it will also work well disambiguating the plural "cans". I don't think CANS could be merged into that. Another option is to merge Cans not with Can but with CANS – the resulting page would have one entry linking to Can and stating "cans" is its plural, another for the writing system code, and then two more for the acronym "CANS". – Uanfala (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
          • On second thoughts, I've realised that in some style guides, acronyms that are pronounced as a word (in contrast to ones like CNN, which are pronounced letter-by-letter) are styled in lower case. This means there's even a stronger case for Cans to list the acronyms, so I've gone ahead and expanded it with the two entries from CANS. I've left the latter page separate, as that would provide the greatest convenience for those readers who would specifically search using all caps, but I won't object if others instead choose to prioritise maintainability and redirect it to Cans. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
        Here's a query listing the 61 dab pairs beginning with C. It doesn't attempt to match plurals. (That would not be trivial: CI and CIS aren't a pair.) Certes (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Informit/InformIT

I posted this question here and have just discovered this page, and as the issue is somewhat related to the Can/CAN issue above, thought that perhaps this is a better place to post (?). Would someone please have a look at it and help me resolve it in a way that is sensible, neat, and follows the DAB rules? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Clickstream

I stumbled across m:Research:Wikipedia clickstream, which records clicks from one page to another. For example, we could see how many visitors to Mercury click through to each of Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), etc. The bad news is that the data is only provided as .tsv files (300 MB) monthly. I don't know of a friendly tool for extracting individual counts, but it shouldn't be too hard to create one if there is a demand. Certes (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, how didn't we know about that? We still chop and hack with pieces of stone when gunpowder has already been invented! Anybody capable and willing to create the friendly tool? – Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've created User:Certes/Dabclick showing the disambiguation pages with most-clicked links. Counts are monthly click totals for November 2020. Certes (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Trident 2

The page Trident 2 contains three targets (one added by me just now), but it's not 100% clear that these are truly ambiguous. User:JalenFolf notes that (at least some of) these may be PTM. Dennis Trident 2 is called "Trident 2" in the article. But Hawker Siddeley Trident 2E is called "Trident 2E", and Trident II uses Roman numerals. What think you? Cnilep (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Dennis is a legitimate entry in the same way that Ford Fiesta belongs on Fiesta. A pedant might relegate [UGM-133] Trident II to See also – it's a II rather than a 2 – but it's a reasonable entry. I was less sure about the Hawker Siddeley but sources [1] [2] do refer to this as "Trident 2" without the E, so I'd leave the page as it is. A dubious entry is less bad than a missing one, especially on a short page. Certes (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Deprivation

Opinions would be welcome regarding what belongs on Deprivation following a recent RfD. See Talk:Deprivation#Cleanup needed? Cnilep (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

wikiproject template

Please take a look at the weird revert war in Talk:Lembit (disambiguation): Revision history. Shall I just ignore the issue and let it be? Or somebody else adds it to the watchlist? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You should self-revert and restore the WP Disambiguation banner, because you are in the wrong. The page exists and is not being "created" by the addition of the banner. Put it back. —ShelfSkewed Talk 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
YOu should have looked at the histrory. The page was created by this template, the rest is just a revert war. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


the page exists and is not being "created" by the addition of the banner. - The complete rule says: "{WikiProject Disambiguation} – Project banner for talk pages with discussion. Please do not use to create talk pages that have no discussion."

IMO the functional part of the rule in question is "for talk pages with discussion"/"talk pages that have no discussion". Meaning do not litter the category with pages where there is nothing to monitor. IMO this rule must include the page with nothing but banners . Lembit Staan (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning: the following paragraph contains more opinion than fact. Apparently, Lembit (disambiguation) is part of WikiProject Estonia. If that project finds its banner useful then by all means add it, creating the Talk: page if necessary. However this project doesn't find the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} (aka {{Disambigproject}}) banner particularly useful, and Talk: pages should not be created simply to contain it. Its main use is as a placeholder where the Talk: page already exists but its previous content is no longer appropriate. The banner can almost be read as "this page intentionally left blank". A prime example is when we move A to B and make A into a dab, remove #REDIRECT [[Talk:B]] from Talk:A, and fill the resulting gap with {{Disambigproject}}. Certes (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Once the page exists, the rationale of avoiding creation of a page with no discussion becomes moot. Three different editors have now added or restored the banner, and your continuing revert war against it seems like nothing more than stubborn "I don't like it"-ism. —ShelfSkewed Talk 23:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong. I was following your guideline: "Project banner for talk pages with discussion", which you stubbornly refuse to read and comprehend. If it is incorrect/inexact/inconsistent, then get your team together and fix the text and don't blame me. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, once the page exists, the Disambiguation banner should appear. There is even a bot task for it (example edit), so removing the banner might prove a Herculean effort! Certes (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Then you must fix your guideline, which now says "Project banner for talk pages with discussion" The talk page in question never had any discussion. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As I see, the discussion is moot, because BattyBot (talk · contribs) adds {{Disambigproject}} into all dabtalk pages regardless empty or not. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bot adds the template to pages which exist, regardless of content, but does not create pages. Pages which exist but have no "content" (discussion prose) typically consist of a list of relevant wikiprojects, and it seems right to include this project in those lists. Certes (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Carter & Carter (name)

In this edit, people named Carter were removed from the dab page. There were two entries of people that were primarily known just as "Carter". Shouldn't those be listed on the Carter dab page. MB 15:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MB: Yes, per MOS:DABNAME, people known monoymously are listed on the dab. I have restored them.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Geodesic (disambiguation)

I have edited Geodesic (disambiguation), removing a large number of partial-title matches. What remains is just two items: Geodesic and Geodesic (general relativity) (but see page history for the items I removed). If those are the only ones, then there seems to be no need for a page with the parenthetical (disambiguation). A hatnote at 'Geodesic' should suffice. Cnilep (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If the see also entries are meaningful (I have no opinion), that would be a justification for keeping the dab.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is "Geodetic" a synonym? If yes, then one may add some more things that can be called simply "Geodetic": Geodetic Hills, Geodetic Glacier, and Geodetic graph Lembit Staan (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote to Geodesy to lead to the hills and glacier, but we possibly need a Geodetic (disambiguation). PamD 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
At a minimum, Geodesic (disambiguation)#See also already had a link to Geodetic PTMs. But now I notice that Geodetic redirects to Geodesy, while Geodesic is it's own standalone. I'll leave it to SMEs to sort it out.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Geodesic Geodetic is an adjective, meaning pertaining either to geodesy or to the geometry of curved surfaces (including geodesics in general relativity; see Geodetic effect.) We usually redirect adjectives to their noun, but I don't see a main article for the mathematical term other than Geodesic. WikiProject Mathematics may be able to help, as it's "their" meanings to which we might need a better path. Certes (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand correctly (and it's possible that I don't), geodesic is also used as a noun, basically a reduced form of geodesic curve, in mathematics and possibly some related fields. Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you're absolutely right. I made a significant typo, which I've just fixed. Certes (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A disambiguation link may be unfixable where there is a source using the ambiguous term, but no source from which the intended use can be discerned. A current example is the link to Bartlett High School in the article, Thomas M. Waller, which states that Waller graduated from an institution so named, but with no clue as to which one.

I propose that we adopt the following language for such instances:

Where a disambiguation link can not be fixed because sources do not indicate which of several possible articles is the intended link, the term should be unlinked, and a footnote should be added stating language to the effect that: "[SOURCE] references [FOO], but it is unclear [[Foo (disambiguation)|which meaning of [FOO]]] is intended.

A number of particularly stubborn links can be resolved that way. I propose adding this to the guideline so that employment of this technique in articles is not contentiously reverted. BD2412 T 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. I've had a few of those. Certes (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd support this as well (although I'd like to see an example because I'm not getting a clear picture of how it plays with the regular references list. Edit: something like this?), but I would think it should be used a bit sparingly, maybe only after a dn tag has been up for awhile and those with possibly more knowledge of the context have had a chance to notice and fix the link. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, like that. I would agree with sparing use, primarily for older targets where sources are sparse. BD2412 T 23:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. I had a couple recently... I think it's bad practice to link to disambigs, and should be strongly discouraged. If WE don't know which one is right, how is the reader supposed to figure it out after we dump her into a list. Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fyrael: Yes, exactly like that. I had one recently for Union College (for Vladimir Pavlecka), and Minsky (for Bo Belinsky. In both cases I had a pretty good idea of what was meant, but "pretty good idea" isn't enough to give the reader a possibly bum steer, so I didn't link either one. I don't see the need for or advantage of the note used in your Mekeel Mcbride example. Maybe. But just blacklinking serves the same purpose well enough, I think. Herostratus (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Herostratus: According to Genius.com, it's Hyman Minsky, though there is no immediate way of confirming that they have it right. BD2412 T 03:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: They're probably just assuming, and it could be be Marvin Minsky instead. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Support unlinking. The footnote generally sounds like overkill. In the school example, the name is generally trivial and can just outright be removed, especially if we have no other specifics.—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The footnote dissuades editors from re-linking the ambiguous term (although this could also be accomplished with invisible text), and lets the reader know that this is all we have. BD2412 T 14:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we recommend the use of some new template for these cases, e.g. Waller attended {{Unfixable dab|Bartlett High School}}? That would aid consistent presentation and allow us to modify our treatment later if necessary. We could also have the template add the linking and/or linked pages to appropriate new hidden maintenance categories. Sadly, I don't think it could easily add a Notes section. Certes (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea - using a template to that effect would make the setup look quite proper. BD2412 T 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I rather prefer having a template with minimal unnecessary intrusion on the reader rather than adding editor-orient notes. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I regularly find similar problems with unambiguous links. For example, it seems very likely that Alice of Champagne settled in Tripoli, Lebanon rather than Tripoli, Libya, but I can't prove it. Another example is Karim Rassi: the source simply says طرابلس, which can also mean طرابلس (لبنان). I would welcome any suggestions for resolving those. Certes (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of changing the tags on these cases from {{disambiguation needed}} to {{disambiguation failed}} (in very old/stubborn cases) and putting them in a separate maint cat. I fixed the Bartlett High School link above by doing some research and creating Bartlett High School (Connecticut). Sometimes they can be resolved with more effort - in this case it wasn't hard to figure out the target - it was just missing from WP. In other cases, its more like the one the Lebanon/Libya example above and we just have to wait for more wait for more sources to be available. MB 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not like the idea in all variants.

  • no source from which the intended use can be discerned - "Stubborn" dabs may be resolved when new info shows up and hiding the notice about a missing dab somewhere into a footnote significantly decreases the chance of someone resolving it.
    • The footnote dissuades - bad idea: the footnotes are for readers, not for writers. IMO the inline comments serve precisely this purpose: they are seen only to editors and one may write something like <!- In September 2020 I tried hard to disambig this name, but I failed. I would suggest not to link this name without correct target. -> Of course, you cannot forbid another editor it link it to a dab anyway.
  • "needed" vs "failed" - IMO the difference is nitpicking, the second one meaning AFAIU, an editor tried with due diligence and failed. So what? NExt year someone else tries and succeeds, and to this end it does not matter which template was used.
  • it's bad practice to link to disambigs - agreed, but IMO it is a lesser evil than not to link at all. If it is not linked and if a reader would want to know what the heck was this Ragtown the writer was born in (if only for a funny name), then they will blame us for not linking and try to google it anyway.

I would agree with the concern that this template kinda intrusive, and I would suggest replacing a foot-long slangy text "[disambiguation needed]" with the shorter one: "[which?]" Lembit Staan (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Too many Karan Sharmas

Hey all, could use a hand figuring out how to disambiguate these two:

Neither appears to have birth years listed. Both appear to work in Hindi-language television. I'm going to guess that both have dark hair. Is it possible to histmerge two human beings? It would be way easier for us if we could just make two dudes into one guy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

They are probably distinct people and possibly even combinations of multiple people. IMDB has 30 Karan Sharmas, including ten actors. Are both notable? Certes (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure if either is notable. But ( TV Actor ) is poorly sourced with one 404 of a decent site and three insufficient ones. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've AFDed the ( TV Actor ), so that should potentially solve this issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added Karan Sharma ( TV Actor ) to the dab page at Karan Sharma , where it was missing. I note that it was moved from AfC into mainspace with this doubly wrong disambiguation (leading space, plus capital A): does checking that the title is correct not form part of the AfDC checking or cleanup process? I see also that Karan Sharma (TV actor) was once given a detailed birth date in the dab page, now reduced to "(born 1984)". Have fun trying to sort them out. (And the dab page has been the subject of some apparently COI edits too, over the years...). PamD 17:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Typo fixed (AfD/AfC) PamD 08:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ah yes, Karansharma206 and Karansharma2998 have contributed to the dab. Perhaps 30 was an underestimate. Certes (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Emhoff

Emhoff used to be a redirect to Doug Emhoff. Now that he is husband of the vice-president (U.S.), the page became a two-entry surname list. Also in the last few days, Emhoff (disambiguation) was created that has different entries. I think this can be improved, but I'm not sure the best way. MB 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Only one entry on the dab is not a surname (and that one references a surname). I would eliminate the dab and have the non-surname in a "See also" on the surname page. BD2412 T 20:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, but what do you mean eliminate the dab, redirect it to the surname or request deletion? And should the surname be at Emhoff (surname) or Emhoff? I would think that the man would be a PT here, not his ex-wife or daughter. MB 20:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I just had that issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilsack. Apparently people don't like to have primary topic redirects of surnames for people below the Einstein level. BD2412 T 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
They don't like it, which is understandable if other people or topics share the name. The problem is that the base name goes to a list rather than a dab, and that list accumulates bad links. (My current record is 122 bad links for Zunz, almost all for Leopold Zunz.) Base names are reserved for primary topics, and in many cases the only credible contender for primary topic is the famous person, not the surname itself. (Alice: Do you like Schoenberg?; Bob: Yes, it's a beautiful surname. seems an unlikely conversation.) New errors like this appear regularly, and not all of them get fixed. Certes (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The page was structured as a namelist and used {{surname}} and not {{dab}}, As such, the house should be listed as a hatnote (I trust it is referred to simply as "Emhoff" and is not just a WP:PTM), as in other cases where a reader arrives at a different topic than they intended. A "see also" in a name list should be to other related names, and not act as a disambiguator. Also, since Emhoff (disambiguation) was pointing to a page that hasn't been a disambiguation page for days, I CSDed it per WP:G14.—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's controversial. I agree with you but some editors think such lists should have a Foo (disambiguation) redirect or at least retain any that may exist. Certes (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DABNAME is clear that name lists are not dabs: Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them.. WP:G14 is clear that (disambiguation) redirects should only point to dabs.—Bagumba (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, I'm right with you, but others are not. Certes (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Got it. I'was only aware of G14 after its passing, and wasnt involved in any of the discussions. FWIW, it seems like G14 was added months after the RfC you pointed out. If SIAs were intended to be exempt from G14, it seems it should have been more explicit. WP:SIA clearly says: A set index article is not a disambiguation page—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you are misreading G14 as it applies to redirects. It says "does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function". A SIA is a "disambiguation-like function". MB 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it's poorly worded, if that was the intent. Why write "disambiguation-like" instead of explicitly mentioning SIAs, esp. when SIAs say they are not dabs? Would it have been an oversight or intentionally to be vague?—Bagumba (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONEOTHER

While Peter Quill (disambiguation) page has just been submitted for speedy deletion per WP:ONEOTHER, two other WP:ONEOTHER dab pages have just been created — Andrew Brooks (disambiguation) {with section header "See also" listing Andrew Brookes (disambiguation) and Andrew Brook (disambiguation)} as well as Andrew Brookes (disambiguation) {with section header "See also" listing Andrew Brooks (disambiguation) and Andrew Brooke, English producer and actor}.

At the same time, a third dab page has been created — Andrew Brook (disambiguation) which has one WP:PRIMARYTOPIC plus two other names as well as section header "See also" which lists Andrew Brooke, American producer and actor {same Andrew Brooke as the one listed under "See also" at Andrew Brookes (disambiguation)} and Andrew Brooks (disambiguation).

Would there be consensus for deleting the two WP:ONEOTHER dab pages — Andrew Brooks (disambiguation) and Andrew Brookes (disambiguation) — and allowing the same hatnote, such as the one atop Andy Brooks — For other people with similar names, see Andrew Brook (disambiguation) — combine all the similar names under "See also" at Andrew Brook (disambiguation) which at least lists three names, rather than just WP:ONEOTHER. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll take the credit or blame for creating those for Brooks and the like. My thinking was that the "see also"'s were plausible destinations, but adding them to the hatnote would be bulky. I tend not to combine names to "allow room for growth", but others might be more aggresive to not have current small lists.—Bagumba (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, if they are combined, I'd suggest just redirecting the variant name (disambiguation) titles to the main combined one, and not deleting them. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I'll deliver you a {{minnow}} here. Those dab pages are a maze to navigate, and if one does not know the exact spelling they certainly do not present a navigation aid. I would merge all those entries in one or at most two dabs (Brooks vs. Brook) and, indeed, redirect all those (disambiguation) links there. No such user (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No such user: No problem. I can take solace in helping start the conversation of adding linkages where they were missing before. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
My contention, "Would there be consensus for deleting the two WP:ONEOTHER dab pages — Andrew Brooks (disambiguation) and Andrew Brookes (disambiguation)...", would have indeed been better presented as, "Would there be consensus for redirecting...", which leaves a record. Even the WP:SPEEDY-submitted Peter Quill (disambiguation), mentioned at the top, might be considered for redirect, rather than deletion, but it does not really have a clear or obvious target. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I was mainly suggesting redirect to avoid bureaucracy of a XfD, if one thought bold change was in order. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course. Redirect is certainly preferable. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've merged Andrew Brookes (disambiguation) into Andrew Brooks (disambiguation). Brooks and Brook seem distinctive enough, so I left Andrew Brook (disambiguation).—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, much neater now. I find it a bit iffy whether philosopher Andrew Brook and imunologist Andrew Brooks are really primary topics over their (near-)namesakes, but that's an issue for a different forum. No such user (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I took what I thought were the more common spellings, i.e. no "e" in name, for the page name. No issue if someone has a better idea to combine them differently.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extra dab

CIDR was created today on top of a redirect to Classless Inter-Domain Routing. There already was CIDR (disambiguation), so the two dabs need to be merged. But I have no idea if the redirect should be restored or not. If anyone else wants to handle this... MB 06:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly reverted. Certes (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)

Second opinions and fresh eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) and the related merge and request moves at Talk:Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 21:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed page move

It has been proposed Franco-American (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Franco-American. Members of this WikiProject may have opinions relevant to the discussion. Please see Talk:Franco-American (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 February 2021. Cnilep (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Pearls Before Swine

Can somebody else please have a look at Pearls Before Swine: specifically this [3] and the 4 or so edits before it. I'm afraid it's another case of an editor "cleaning up" a page where there was nothing wrong with it in the first place, and reverting edits by both me and @AngusWOOF:. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shhhnotsoloud's placement over mine. The lower-case is primary topic as per the redirect discussion. [4] It doesn't need to be listed in the opening sentence, but should be the first bullet entry. It shouldn't be buried among the disambiguations as the other editors have tried to move. The phrase is what became the namesake of the media titles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
pearls before swine is a redirect to another article, and is only one of several possible uses of Pearls Before Swine, definitely not the primary topic for the capitalized version, and very likely not the most sought entry on the capitalized dab page, which is probably the comic strip, based on pageviews. It should be listed under "Literature" or "Other Uses" along with everything else and Matthew 7:6 should be the bluelink per MOS:DAB. - Station1 (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Matthew 7:6 should be the bluelink" at the very least is correct, as the redirect doesn't meet any of the qualifications at MOS:DABREDIR. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
But it is the primary topic for the lower cased term. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but this is the dab page for the upper-case term. It is not primary topic for the upper-case term, just one of several. Station1 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and some who prize small differences in capitalization seem to assume this means all readers follow the same convention. Shhhnotsoloud's edit does not make the biblical saying as the primary topic. It does place it prominently on the page as appropriate for the primary topic of a small difference for the same phrase. older ≠ wiser 10:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's better if the biblical phrase is linked first, ideally in a primary-topic-style initial full sentence, as it's the source and common denominator of all the other entries. Linking via the redirect is good, as pearls before swine can be seen as an alternative name for the target, or at the very least a major subtopic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Inactive?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia lists this WikiProject as inactive. Incorrect? --Bsherr (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bsherr: No, it's a very active project, as can be seen from recent discussions above. Thanks for pointing out the error in the table, which I've now fixed. Certes (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Wikipedia disambiguation

Template:Wikipedia disambiguation has been nominated for merging with Template:Disambiguation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Would another editor please take a look at Don Bacon where there is an issue about interpretation of MOS:DABRL. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If Donald Bacon (journalist) is likely to be written, the entry should appear with a blue link to List of winners of the Gerald Loeb Newspaper Award. Otherwise we should leave it out. Does anyone know whether he passes WP:JOURNALIST and is likely to acquire an article? Certes (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Airplane Mode disambiguation

I am a wiki novice so I would appreciate some guidance on this query; there is a 2019 Italian film Modalità aereo, which translates to "Airplane Mode" in English, and I am wondering if it could be added to Airplane mode (disambiguation). On Airplane Mode (2019 film), there is a for template directly redirecting to the film. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Rayan

An article that been involved with (Rayan) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Rayan (disambiguation)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have raised a TfD for Template:Ambiguous episcopal titles and sees in England, which may interest members of this WikiProject. Certes (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Java RM

Editors who watch this page may be interested in Talk:Java (disambiguation)‎‎#‎Requested move 28 February 2021, which may close tomorrow. I didn't intend to WP:CANVASS, here, but the new argument that Java is used as an example in WP:NWFCTM makes it relevant to this project. Certes (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed: no consensus to move. Certes (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the redirect Orthodox Christian

Orthodox Christian redirects to Orthodoxy#Christianity. However, most of the time it is used as a hyperlink on WP to refer to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Members of both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are two dirrerent churches, are called "Orthodox Christians". Therefore, I think Orthodox Christian should link to the disambiguation page Orthodox and that some users from this project should be disambiguating since it will now pe pointing to a DB page. What do you think? (Please ping me if you answer). Veverve (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I think you should raise this at WP:RFD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Profanity

Should someone perform a cleanup on Ook as I believe that one of the links features a profane name (includes f***). Although it is a specific name of something, which we can’t change I believe we should attempt to change it. I will not take action to remove it unless someone else does agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.63.205 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The listed use is ambiguous and appears to be supported by the linked article. The entry should not be removed or censored.—ShelfSkewed Talk 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Move request per policy

Hello. Requesting comments at Talk:Bhat#Requested move 20 March 2021. The article title should to be changed per policy — WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UCRN. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested at Talk:Tmolus#Requested move 28 March 2021 that several pages be moved and renamed. Comments and suggestions are very welcome at that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Parliament of China

Please can someone with a clue about China look at new dab Parliament of China? It used to redirect to National People's Congress (PRC parliament) but now also lists RoC parliaments, including the Legislative Yuan which is still current. Confusing layout aside, I'm not sure whether this is a beneficial change or the NPC should be restored as a primary topic. Certes (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the disambiguation page to a dab title, and restored the previous redirect. As long as China is a primary topic title, any "Foo of China" title should follow that primary topic, absent a specific discussion supporting a variation from that standard, as per WP:CONPRIME. BD2412 T 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed: Bot to identify errant primary topic assignments

I wonder if it might be possible to have a bot identify cases where there is a primary topic article and a disambiguation page for that title, but the topic occupying the base page name is likely not the primary topic (e.g., that article is a stub and/or has relatively few pageviews relative to other topics sharing the name). BD2412 T 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I've done some manual work in that area but using incoming link counts rather than page views. There are areas of Wikipedia where an "honorary primary topic" was grandfathered in. Some have gone – it's now nearly five years since AD 1 was evicted from 1 – but others such as surname lists remain. Certes (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is definitely a good idea. I come across obviously unsuitable primary topics all the time (fixing them has been a source of serendipitous joy, though I'm sure that if all of the remaining ones are compiled into the big, big list that they'll inevitably be, the more likely feeling would be not joy, but misery). We don't need an on-wiki bot for that, right? Someone can write a script that extracts the relevant data from the pageviews datasets, give us the list once and allow us to be busy with it for the rest of our lives. Anyway, what criteria can we use? Some conservative ones would look like:
1. All cases where article X receives less than 7x as many views as X (disambiguation)
2. All cases where Y is a primary redirect that receives less than 50% more views than Y (disambiguation).
And we can go further, and keep ourselves busy for the afterlife too, by querying the clisktream dataset for hatnote links that receive disproportionately high attention. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
My thinking was more along the lines of a ratio of "primary topic" pageviews compared to collective pageviews for subjects listed on the disambiguation page. This might kick up quite a few false positives, but I feel like we can eliminate those fairly easily. BD2412 T 00:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Going down the stub rather than pageviews route, quarry:query/53646 suggests some candidates. Pageviews are harder; as far as I know they're only available as hourly dumps. MusikAnimal has a tool which uses the inputs we need to produce different outputs and may be adapatable. Certes (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@R'n'B: resident data genius, what do you think? BD2412 T 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Bluelink patrol has done some work in this area. Good sources of bad links include:
– Certes (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A related issue is WP:RMs to declare a WP:PTOPIC, and similar. Such discussions are often dominated by editors who know little or nothing about the problems such changes cause. I imagine we've all seen moves where good declarations of no-PTOPIC have broken several thousand links, where even WP:ADMIN closers have been unaware that they've just created a massive problem. This is the converse. IMO there is far too much emphasis on saving a (possibly small) majority of readers one click at the expense of degrading the encyclopedia. I remonstrate in such RMs when I fall across them, but often in vain. Very often, PTOPIC tests #1 and #2 are treated as separate; whereas in my view they are cumulative.
Talk:Kai (entertainer, born 1994)#Merger proposal (which I found today, only because it turned up in DPwL) is a similar type of problem. I've seen John Doe (footballer) and John Doe (soccer); as if that qualifier was enough to distinguish players of a game which is known by one name in one half of the English-speaking world and by another in the other. </rant> Narky Blert (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Short description for dabs

Editors may be interested in Template talk:Disambiguation page short description#Short?, which discusses changing the short description provided to monst dabs via templates such as {{Disambiguation}}. The SD currently reads Disambiguation page providing links to topics that could be referred to by the same search term. Certes (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question

I believe the disambig page Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question recently created by The Anome (talk · contribs) should be a redirect to Institut d'étude des questions juives instead, but I'm not sure I'm aware of all the intricacies of WP:D.

There are articles about two WW2-era antisemitic propaganda organizations, one based in Germany, one in Occupied France, with confusingly similar names in English. Each article has a hat note to the other, and there are no other similarly named agencies. The two articles are:

The recently-created disambig page Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question is almost identical in name to the redirect, being singular instead of plural, and it lists just those two entries. I think that the hat notes at the two articles are sufficient, and optimal for user search and navigation. Having a disambig page at that title seems unhelpful, because the page name is an exact translation into English of the name of the Paris agency, with the exception of the '-s' at the end of Questions. Rather than becoming a disambig page, "Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question" should redirect to the article on the Paris-based article with the French name.

One goal in disambiguation or redirection I believe, is to get a user to the correct article as fast as possible, and imho, changing this page to a redirect saves one click most of the time (the French agency is better known), and is no worse (two clicks) the rest of the time. But I know there are some subtleties regarding disambiguation, so I thought I'd better ask here.

(P.S. There's an orthogonal problem which I don't think affects this question, but is worth mentioning just in case: I believe that the common name of the Paris agency in English books is in fact the English term, "Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question" (or, "Questions"), and the article ought to be moved to that title. But that is a separate issue from the disambig page question, and in any case would have to undergo an WP:RM#CM before it is moved.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: the two institutions have such similar names that either could be intended when a reader lands on this dab page, and page views since Dec 20 page move are very similar so neither is an obvious primary topic. There's probably scope to add several more variations as incoming redirects to the dab page, which could be intended for either organisation. The page history of the Nazi org shows the work done by Mathglot to disambiguate. This dab page serves a useful purpose. PamD 07:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps reconsider Ah, just realised Mathglot is the proponent of the deletion ... no time to look further and reconsider, need to go out now. PamD 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm no longer sure what should be done here. Maybe we should keep the disambig page, rename it by adding '(disambiguation)' to the end of it, and add this org as a new entry. Per WP:DABRED, we could add a red link for it somewhere, then add it to the disambig page; perhaps even via a {{ill}} to indicate the existing German article, which might spur someone to create it here. (Are you listening, User:Mathglot? This is up your alley for a translation, isn't it?) Note that the article Institute for Research on the Jewish Question already mentions this institute in plain text in paragraph two of the lead; all that is required to make a red link out of it, is to add square brackets. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've got it squared away, now:
Some d-page entries may need to be beefed up (they're still confusingly similar) and other pages need {{About}} to link them to the disambig page. I think this should do it, but feedback appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's also redirect other attempts at an English translation of any of these confusingly similar titles (Institute for the Study of Jewish Questions, Institute for Study of the Jewish Question) to the dab. In particular, it seems wrong that Institute for Study of the Jewish Question redirects to Institute for Research on the Jewish Question when we have an article on a different organisation called Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question. The dab can also list near misses such as Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life. Certes (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Certes: thanks for your comment. I was uncertain how to handle a couple of these cases, which is why they are currently redirects to articles. In particular, when there is common, established usage in English of an organization name that is French or German by origin, how do we decide whether to redirect them to the d-page, or to the article? That is to say: if someone is reading the words, "Institute for the Study of Jewish Questions" in a reliable English history or article, that organization is the IEQJ; if they search for that, shouldn't we just redirect directly to it, instead of forcing them to go via the Disambig page? Besides the extra click, mightn't that even make things worse, confusing the reader by confronting them with a disambig page listing all those confusingly similar names, where no confusion existed in their mind before, when they were just reading the reference? If somehow it actually is the wrong article (let's say the book's author or translator got it wrong (!) ), then the hatnote at the top will take care of that. I just don't know if we should go first to the d-page; at least if they land on some real page, even the wrong one, there's both the hatnote, and they can read the lead paragraph or so to figure out if they're in the right place. Just not sure what is best here. Mathglot (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point. If reliable sources tie an English-language name unambiguously to one organisation then we should point that name at its article. Maybe, in practice, only Institute for Study of the Jewish Question needs to redirect to the dab (or could even be its title). Certes (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Certes:, yes perhaps, but there may also be some preparatory (or follow-up) work involved, regarding in-links that are or were all over the map before this began to be addressed. This is described near the bottom of this discussion. I definitely think we're making progress and getting closer to getting it right, but there's no doubt it's been confusing, and remains so in part, and one has to tread carefully. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Just started to look at in-links; I've checked two so far, and they both got trapped by the confusion, and were wrong. They are now fixed. The very first one is Hans F. K. Günther, and was fixed in this edit. The second one is the Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce, fixed in this edit. I suspect there may be more articles pointing to the wrong target if linked, or simply using the wrong words in plain text, as the Günther article did, reflecting the confusion we've described above. Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Same at Alfred Rosenberg; that's 3 checked, 3 wrong. Stopping for now. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, links need to be sorted out. It's tempting to do that now but we can do a better job once we're sure what the articles will be called. Certes (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, there's two different kinds of sorting out that needs to be done; getting the names right is one of them, and I think we're there or mostly there now, and the other is linking to the right "concept", irrespective of the name of the article. Given that the three articles I checked had links in them pointing to the wrong article (that is to say, the wrong concept; e.g., meaning to point to the Rosenberg-1934-Frankfurt org article, but pointing to the Goebbels-1939 one instead), I think it's more important to fix them so they point to the right place. If the name changes later, a move-redirect will track it to the right target. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the links are more important, but they can't sensibly be fixed until we're confident that the titles won't change, so we have to do the less important job first. Certes (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Mathglot: As long as each meaning has a different title, and all links are fixed to point to the current title of their intended target subject, then any later decision to change the name of one or more articles can easily be sorted out by Moving articles and letting double redirects convert to single redirects. PamD 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dry hole

Would another editor please have a look at Dry hole. My cleanup tag was removed despite 2 of the 3 entries leading to articles that don't mention the term. You'd need to be aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Dry Hole. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The page could be deleted, but I guess it doesn't hurt much. In the meantime I changed the first entry to link to where the term is mentioned, however briefly. Station1 (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The removal of the bizarre cleanup tag was explained at Talk:Dry hole. – Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The cleanup tag, applied by me because 2 of the 3 entries fail MOS:DABMENTION, was not "bizarre". Ultimately, it's about WP:Verifiability. We cant just override policy with it's obvious. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you tried to verify those two uses and failed? For me, both meanings are given by the dictionary that's the very first result when I google the terms. How much easier could it possibly get? You don't need citations for commonly known facts, but if you prefer to have then, feel free to add them – the dab page would be a good place for those references (they can't sensibly be added to the linked articles without significant reworking of the existing text, and it's not haram to have them on the dab page: after all, don't policies like WP:V always trump the minor style guidelines that recommend against refs on dabs?). – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
No, if it is so common, it should be uncontroversial to add something to an appropriate target article that satisfies WP:DABMENTION. The onus for ensuring the entries satisfy criteria rests with those wanting to include entry. Else it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that linked articles Oil well and Business venture have no significant information on literal or metaphorical dry holes. Hydrocarbon exploration#Terms used in petroleum evaluation and Business failure might just qualify as reasonable targets. Certes (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Oil well#Abandonment is the relevant section, but as for metaphorical ones – yeah, Business failure seems like the better place to link. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Can "dry hole" describe an abandoned well, or only a site which never produced oil? Certes (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good point. So, this particular section may not necessarily be relevant in that case, which means the link should just go to the article, as it currently does, and not this section. I don't think retargeting to the glossary is going to be of much of use to readers – the information it contains is more or less equivalent to what is already present in the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
It's rare for an abandoned well to be actually dry: production ceases when remaining reserves are economical to exploit. It may even reopen if prices rise, taxes fall, new technology makes extraction easier or politics cut off alternative supplies. Certes (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Patient zero dab page

Excuse me if I'm ignorant, (having been on WP for 11 years perhaps I should know), but aren't dab pages supposed to avoid the use of piping? I made an edit here and was reverted, here.
• I just want a second opinion. Regards, 220 of ßorg 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Going through a redirect, which makes it clear why the term is in the dab page, is fine; it's not the same as piping. (If the link had been input as [[Patient zero (medical science)|Patient zero]], that would have been piping.) PamD 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I actually meant redirects, not piping. :-/
Is my sentence 'structure':
"The index case, the first documented patient in a disease epidemic within a population, colloquially known as 'patient zero'.",
not appropriate for a dab page named 'Patient zero'? If so, is:
" 'Patient zero' is a colloquial term for the index case, the first documented patient in a disease epidemic within a population.",
any better? Just wondering. Regards, 220 of ßorg 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The page now has a RM discussion. If the proposed move does not occur then I like the current dab entry:
There's nothing wrong with using a (non-piped) redirect here, and it clarifies why the meaning is listed in a way that index case wouldn't. Certes (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is MOS:DABREDIR.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bagha

I would welcome some help with improving disambiguation page Bagha. Its history shows varying views as to what should be included. Certes (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a discussion at its talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Done; Talk:Bagha#Page contents open for comments. Certes (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Scion

I made what I thought was a helpful improvement to the Scion page (although was a bit unsure about phrasing and formatting given the meanings), which was reverted by an experienced DAB editor. To my eye, the way it is at the moment is not helpful to the reader who is looking for the actual meaning(s) of the word. Unfortunately "Descendant" leads to another DAB page, but the botanical/horticultural usage is listed far down the page under "Other uses". I am aware of the Wiktionary box on the right, but it is not highly visible and the casual reader could easily miss this. Could the botanical use (which is fairly well known, and many dictionaries give this meaning first) not be used as the primary topic, and/or descendant/heir not be somehow explained near the top within the rules of a DAB page? Wikipedia rules should not be an obstacle to helping finding information, surely? I just cannot see why fictional entities and brand names get precedence over a perfectly common use of the word. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If there's a lexical meaning that's common to most entries on the dab page, and if it's likely it won't be known to some readers, then it's usually helpful to include a brief definition on the first line of the dab page, as you have done. That's the 'heir' meaning, but I won't object if the grafting one is included as well. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink: The reality is that the horticultural use is nowhere near being a primary topic by usage (see [5]). Entries on disambiguation pages are organised, not prioritised, unless there's a good case for putting a common use at the top. In this encyclopeadia (as you've probably noticed!) it's very common for fictional entities and brand names to get much more traffic than common use of the word: after all, it's not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Organization is based on MOS:DABORDER. If there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, consensus could be to place a few main usages on top. It's not clear if the grafting one is one of them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so listing its common definition(s) is not directly a consideration for dabs.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Set indices

Are set indices in the scope of this project? I assumed so as they are mentioned on its main page and they often contain "(disambiguation)" in their title as well, but then I found someone who removed the talk page banner and wasn't sure. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Wikipedia:Set index articles are not disambiguation pages and consequently not included in this project. Set index articles should not have (disambiguation) in their titles, although some set index articles have (disambiguation) redirects to them (because they used to be disambiguation pages, and because they are disambiguation-like, those redirects aren't deleted). In this case Cyclone Hamish (disambiguation) should either be a disambiguation page, or it should be moved to something like List of cyclones called Hamish. This has happened with tropical storms before but I can't recall exactly where. In this particular case, the answer I think is to use the hatnote at Cyclone Hamish to point to Tropical Cyclone Hamish (1999), and delete (WP:PROD) Cyclone Hamish (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; I nominated the page per WP:ONEOTHER. Looking at Category:Set indices on storms, there is a set of pages using "List of", but quite a few is using "(disambiguation)" as well. Should they be renamed? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The advice in WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Storm set index articles matches our own practices: with two topics, one being primary, no list or dab is needed. Where the secondary topic does not have its own article, that link advises a hatnote to its mention, but gives the example of Hurricane Andrew which lacks one. Certes (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Certes Thanks for the link. This seems to support my proposed renaming. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Other recent discussions: WT:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 45#List of storm names vs storm name (disambiguation) and Talk:Tropical Storm Abby#Requested move 13 February 2021 Certes (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary Dab Page?

Hello, I'm not sure if there is an established process for this, but I stumbled across the Dab page Vasos y besos, which I think is completely unnecessary because it only lists an album and song by the same band. The song does not have its own WP article, and it is (confusingly) on a different album that also does not have an article. I suggest that the article title Vasos y besos be used for the article that is currently called Vasos y besos (album), and that the present Dab page be deleted or redirected to the album or whatever. I can't figure out the procedure, or perhaps less is necessary. Please advise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Album Himno de mi corazón is listed in Los Abuelos de la Nada#Studio Albums but the song has no DABMENTION. The last part of G14 seems relevant here: it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page. We should probably move the album to remove the qualifier and make the title more CONCISE. Redirecting the dab to the album would have a similar effect but leave the article at a verbose title, rather like leaving a dab MALPLACED. Certes (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Simply delete the "dab page" and move Vasos y besos (album) to Vasos y besos. - Station1 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume that simply deleting the dab page is a CSD process that can be done by an Admin, after which moving the titles should be pretty basic. I'll leave the procedure to you guys. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If you think it's controversial then start a Requested move discussion; if not then it can be dealt with at WP:RMTR. Either way there's no need to ask for the dab to be deleted explicitly; it will go as part of the album article move. Certes (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Allen

Your disambiguation page for `Ruth Allen` does not have an entry for the artist `Ruth Allen`. Please create the wikipedia page for her and fix the disambiguation page.91.240.227.220 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the right venue for this request. You could try listing the subject at Wikipedia:Requested articles, though there's definitely no guarantee that that will result in anyone creating the article. The most effective solution would be to write the article yourself. But either way, you should first make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomic species terms

I have a feeling this has been thoroughly discussed - perhaps someone can give chapter and verse to point to earlier decisions or policies.

Do we link (using dab page entries, redirects, or hatnotes) to the second part of binomial identifiers, the species name?

I removed links from Alba (disambiguation) and was reverted.

This also implies a question as to whether dab pages like A. alba and similar should exist. I'm pretty sure it was agreed that they shouldn't, and that List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names does the job better.

Any thoughts? (@YorkshireExpat: for info.) PamD 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Appreciate this, but many DAB pages contain species information (admitedly I've added some myself). See Machaon for example (I haven't touched that one) or Canadensis for one I only added to recently. If this has been discussed could it be added to WP:DAB or somewhere please? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the acid test is MOS:DABNOENTRY: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name ... This does not apply if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title." So, is Barn owl, Tyto alba, the common barn owl commonly known as "Alba": definitely not. Is Isotheca alba, a species of flowering plants belonging to the family Acanthaceae commonly known as "Alba": probably not. Is Alba, a cultivar of Bergenia stracheyi commonly known as "Alba": probably yes ('Alba' there needs single quotes). As for Canadensis, that's an abomination, and should be reduced to two entries—Canadensis, Pennsylvania and List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: Thanks for that. How do you feel about List_of_species_named_simplex? Should a similar thing be done with Canadensis? It's the lack of consistency that troubles me. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@YorkshireExpat: List articles and disambiguation pages are different. Actually a good solution would be to move the binomial species entries from the disambiguation page to a new article List of species named canadensis, and leave the disambiguation page with 2 entries—Canadensis, Pennsylvania and List of species named canadensis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_53#Specific_epithets, and Talk:Tristis is apparently where these started. There doesn't seem to be consensus in the last discussion against abbreviation dabs such as A. alba, but I'm not in favor of them. C. elegans (disambiguation) is illustrative of what a "complete" abbreviation dab page might look like. Plantdrew (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

College football dab

1977 college football season used to redirect to 1977 NCAA Division I football season as Primary Target where there is a hatnote pointing to the dab 1977 college football season (disambiguation). Today, it was turned into a duplicate dab. I reverted this once, and now have been reverted to "be consistent with other season". The current state with two dabs is certainly wrong, but I haven't looked at "other seasons". If someone wants to look into this further... MB 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As for consistency, 1978 college football season is a dab, but 1976 college football season was a redirect until today. BD2412 moved the 1977 dab a couple of years ago as a "better solution", so may understand the problem better than I do. Of course, if the dab should live at the base name then we should move it there rather than duplicating it. Certes (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I would contend that the clear primary topic for any college football seasons across multiple divisions will be the NCAA Division I, which is the one with all the ranked teams and bowl games. BD2412 T 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like UW Dawgs created many of these dabs today, replacing redirects to the NCAA Division I (for years after 1972). Before 1973, there was NCAA University Division and NCSS College Division and the redirect was to the University Division. MB 01:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:NCAA football season navbox is a good data primer to understand the NCAA's football division hierarchy by year. 1978 college football season to 2019 college football season were already DABs. 1956 is the first year of multiple divisions within NCAA. My edits replicated the existing 1978-2019 DAB behavior within the 1956 college football season to 1977 college football season date range. Also, 1956 marks the first season of NAIA which is smaller than the NCAA, but is the same type of governance organization (Template:NAIA football navbox). NAIA links could/should have been included in my edits, as they are already present in 1978-2019. The view that the top level of the NCAA (the specific name varies by era) is the PRIMARYTOPIC is reasonable enough. That said, the WP:CFB project has YYYY content and articles which span all all leagues and divisions of football. In such cases, being able to link to "YYYY college football season" which renders as a DAB is preferable. That general behavior and consistency serves readers and editors in my view. Understood that "foo" and "foo (disambiguate)" are in play as well. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
About 80% of the links to DABs are now resolved.[6] There are 140 remaining articles which create 1 or more link to a DAB. Almost none of remaining links should ever point to the former target at the "top" level of NCAA. We've sort of hit the wall on easy/recent and the remaining inbound DAB links are from older seasons in lower leagues with more obscure teams where something like ESPN College Football Encyclopedia may be helpful. Certainly some of these can be delinked where appropriate, but the remain progress will be much slower. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Same thematic issue flagged at Template talk:Infobox NCAA football yearly game#Extend YYYY / NCAA level logic. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Jweiss11, I think I fixed it and I added an optional division parameter. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Frietjes, everything looks great. Thanks for your work here! Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Great Western Railway

Some help at Talk:Great Western Railway (disambiguation)#Primary topic would be appreciated please. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Dabfix

Is Dispenser's Dabfix working for anyone? With https://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Dabfix, the page won't load and I get the message "Secure Connection Failed". With http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Dabfix, it will load the page but any search results in "A problem occurred in a Python script". Do I need to work on my browser settings or is this a problem with the current script? Leschnei (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dabfix is broken, probably because it has not been maintained since the databases it uses moved earlier this year. None of Dispenser's tools work under https:, because the certificate relates to the domain name rather than the IP address. (You may be able to get round this by using a local hosts file pointing dispenser.info.tm at 69.142.160.183.) Most other tools work using http: and the IP address. Certes (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Leschnei (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Model

Recently, Model has been built out by well-meaning editors to go far beyond the content limitations of a disambiguation page. I think this indicates that it is a WP:DABCONCEPT topic, and should be expanded to an article on models-as-representations of other things (whether ideas, objects, or people). BD2412 T 05:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it needs to be split, with Model, Colorado etc. moving to Model (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I have split it between Model and Model (disambiguation), but it needs some work. BD2412 T 20:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little dubious as to whether this is the primary topic. I predict that a month from now, it will have accumulated a bunch of bad incoming links (especially ones intended for model (person)). I agree that the earlier version of the dab page was off-model with respect to MOS, but I'm not sure this is the best solution. Colin M (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I would say that model (person) is just one specialized instance of a model-as-representation. However, it is possible that there was a missing broad concept article for the general meaning of model which is still not itself the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 06:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I could support a move Model → Model (representation) and Model (disambiguation) → Model but I'm more reluctant than most to put a borderline primary topic at the base name. I'll monitor incoming links and report back. Certes (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I caught my first new model! Certes (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
New links seem to be exclusively for Model (person). (Today's crop.) We could almost get a bot to fix these as they appear, in the same way that songs with a genre of Soul, Country, etc. get fixed to Soul music or Country music. Certes (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that the fix for most cases of Model (person) is to unlink. When describing a person as a model, this is a common word that is understood by most and should not be linked. MB 16:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we improve the hatnote on Model (person)? Model (art) is also a person (as was Abram Model, though no one will seek him at that title). Certes (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tarazi

I have reverted edits to Tarazi twice in the past 24 hours, and don't want to run afoul of edit-warring rules. Attention from contributors to the project would be welcome.

User:Leschnei cleaned up the DAB in May, removing details about the surname and an external link. W7d3rb (talk · contribs) reverted that edit. Eventually Leschnei added a {{dab-cleanup}} tag, and I cleaned up the page again last week. That was reverted by an anonymous user, then restored by me, and then again reverted by W7d3rb.

I moved the non-DAB content to Draft:Tarazi (surname) and left a message at User talk:W7d3rb to that effect. At this point, though, it is becoming an edit war, so I will back off. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cnilep, I hope your changes stick this time. Like you, I backed off of this page for a while because I didn't want to engage in edit warring. Thanks for your efforts. Leschnei (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Kabi and Kabi (disambiguation)

Could someone sort this out, please? There been a strange history here (read Talk:Gubbi Gubbi people for some context), but I am fairly certain that there is no primary topic for the term "Kabi" and that the DAB page should be moved there. — Goszei (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Goszei: You can boldly move it, filing a request at WP:RM#TR if the existing redirect blocks you from doing so. —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with closing a dab discussion?

Anybody here willing to take a look at the discussion here, Talk:Baten Kaitos#Redirect Baten Kaitos, and close it. It's wildly in favor of a dab page, with only one editor objecting. Skyerise (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disappointed#Requested move 22 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disappointed#Requested move 22 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Following my proposal in the community wish list, which got the second highest number of votes, the community tech team have started to consider this at meta:Community Tech/Warn when linking to disambiguation pages & some discussion has stared on the talk page there. Interested editors (especially those with more technical knowledge than me), may want to get involved so that whatever solution is developed helps to reduce the number of unwanted dab links created.— Rod talk 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Change from set index to DAB?

I've just noticed that Marika appears to have been created as a set index page, and includes various name categories, but is now effectively a DAB page. I'm not sure what to do about this - can someone please advise? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the non-name entries to Marika (disambiguation) which I've convertted to a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. There has been no showing of an absence of a primary topic, that being the name. BD2412 T 16:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud, that's better. I'm thinking that perhaps the Polish singer with the single name Marika belongs on the name page, or both pages? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The seven incoming links were all for different topics, including three different singers performing under the mononym "Marika". I've added a hatnote to Marika (singer), but we could move the article and retarget the partially disambiguated title to the not-a-dab Marika. Certes (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Certes. I'll leave others more experienced in DAB matters to opine on that one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Generally there is an entry for people who use a mononym at both the disambiguation page and the name page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Morning Star ceremony

I have another question - what to do about the Morning Star ceremony, listed on the Morning Star DAB page and targeting a section within Pawnee mythology, about an historical ceremony. The Yolngu Morning Star ceremony (variously spelt with and without capitalised C) is a hugely important and ongoing Aboriginal ceremony, which is often represented in art. There are 7 incoming links to the Pawnee redirect. I would like to have an R to section redirect for the Australian one. Any advice? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: I see the disambiguation page already lists Barnumbirr. I would reword the Pawnee-related entry to make the subject "Morning Star" rather than the ceremony. Regarding the redirect Morning Star ceremony, I would put a hatnote at Pawnee mythology#Morning Star ceremony: {{redirect|Morning Star ceremony|another use|Barnumbirr#The Morning Star Ceremony}}. Or if you wanted a wider discussion, list Morning Star ceremony at WP:RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Shhhnotsoloud. I ended up shuffling the DAB entries a bit and playing around with the order, in order to get the two ceremonies together... Is that acceptable? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple dabs on New York City Subway stations

Could anyone help and advise on the table containing multiple links to dab pages on New York City Subway stations in the section headed Stations with the same name. Some of these dab pages just include stations on the NY subway but many include links to other things (eg The dab page for Third Avenue includes a band and an album) or articles about other cities (eg Canal Street includes places in the UK, an album and a jazz festival in Norway) - I am not sure how useful this is to readers. I have started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name and would welcome your comments.— Rod talk 14:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Witt

Lembit Staan and I have been editing Template:White-surname to find the best link to the surname Witt. WP:INTDAB suggests a link via Witt (disambiguation), but that is felt to be inappropriate here. What changes should we make? Certes (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just move the list of people out of the dab and into a new Witt (surname)? With about 40 entries, it's pretty long already. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing for a long time: splitting surname from dab. But I have only so many fingers. For example, yesterday for several hours I wikignomed over my new template {{abraham-name}}, surprisingly many of them. Pages like XX (surname) have many advantages for my work, even if they are redirects. if they have problems for bots, they must be excluded from bot processing. As a programmer I am thoroughly surprized this is a difficulty to add 2-3 lines into the code of the bot to skip articles with titles of particular format. I disagree with the idea that a bot has precedence over a human. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I certainly agree with creating a Witt (surname) article. That would cause no problems for the bot or us: deliberate links to the surname will go to the new article, they won't need to be fixed, and bots won't report them because it's not a dab. The problem only arises when XX (surname) redirects to a disambiguation page and articles link via that redirect.
More generally, we need the bot to report links to lists of topics which should instead lead to a specific topic. Suppressing reports of genuine errors isn't a fix. Apart from other surname pages and their templates, almost nothing links deliberately to a surname; incoming links are usually mistakes. Last year I fixed about 5,000 errors of this type (for example, over 100 links to Zunz intended for Leopold Zunz) and I'm not the only editor working in that area. A previous project fixed 1,500 in taxonomy articles alone (insects discovered by Johnson, etc.) Edits like this come in daily. (Nassar should be Nassar (actor) in this case.) We can help fix them, but only if we can find them using a report without too many false positives. Certes (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Split done. Thanks for the suggestion. Certes (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lembit Staan: I've produced Quarry:query/57256 in case it's useful. It lists the dabs which link to the most people and at least 10 non-people, though those links aren't always dab entries. ("John Doe, contestant in Mr. Ruritania 1983" counts as a non-person link.) Certes (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ceretes: I don't quite understand. YOu have "Jiří 112 22" I dont' see in Jiří and "what links to Jiri" neither 112 nor 22. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation page Jiří includes 112 people who could be split off into Jiří (name). However, that would not leave much: few of the 22 other links are non-human topics called Jiří. Perhaps we should skip Jiří. Manu is a better example. Removing the 94 people to Manu (name) would leave about 20 non-human entries (Manu (bird), Manu (film), Manu Temple, etc.): more than enough to support a dab with a single entry for the name. Certes (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonce

There are a number of editors who'd like to add a prominent slang meaning to this DAB, despite it not appearing on the target article. My kneejerk reaction was "no", but maybe this is a special case. At any rate, it would be good to see more opinions on there from those with disambiguation experience. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting disambiguation: Al-Ashraf

I think a disambiguation should be created for the name Al-Ashraf as there many articles that start with it. Currently Al-Ashraf points to Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus but maybe should point to Al-Ashraf Musa (which is itself another disambiguation). I am making the request here because I do not know how to proceed. I have several questions, (1) should Al Ashraf the city be included in the disambiguation? If so, should Al Ashraf be the common name for the disambiguation or should we use Al Ashraf (Disambiguation)? The village is not so notable. (2) Does Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus need to keep that redirect from Al-Ashraf? (3) Finally, should Al-Ashraf Musa be just a redirect to Al-Ashraf (Disambiguation)? --ReyHahn (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just make a disambiguation page at Al-Ashraf and merge Al-Ashraf Musa into it. The Arabian village Al Ashraf should be moved to Al Ashraf, Makkah since there's a sizable one in Al Ashraf, 'Asir as well as a dozen in Yemen, Al-Ashraf (Taiz) having an article. No such user (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Wow, you discovered just a tip of the Iceberg. I filled Al-Ashraf dab page with some 20 entries – it was the name of several sultans of Egypt. However, Al-Ashraf was left pointed to by 40-odd links, hopefully intended for Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus. No such user (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In this case this Al-Ashraf Musa appears to be the main topic, and you should have followed the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e., Al-Ashraf must redirect to him and Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus must have a natnote {{redirect}}. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
... OR maybe not. SUltan of Egypt is quite notable as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
To me both are important on the same grounds. Yet all Al Ashraf articles are still stub of start class.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
For posterity: I did consider whether the Emir of Damascus is the primary topic, but in the end it did not seem to be the case. He is certainly well attested in the historical records of his era (and consequently linked from a number of our articles), but 40-odd links is not an overwhelming number, and his article is woefully short and fails to list even the events for which he was mentioned elsewhere. In fact, I suppose he occupied the primary place for so long is because it was created back in 2007, but unfortunately has not grown much since. No such user (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Primary topic of brave?

The DAB page at brave currently says that Brave most commonly refers to:

I think it is quite a stretch to say that it "commonly" refers to the Native American warriors, considering how few page views it gets and the fact that this sense is labeled as "dated" in Wiktionary and other sources. I, for one, can't recall the last time I heard this usage. This makes me want to say it should not be listed at the very top, but I am not the most familiar with DAB pages and I notice that long-term significance is an important factor. In that regard, this sense may possibly be more significant that the more popular Brave articles: the 2012 movie and the web browser. But frankly I feel that term was significant more so a century ago than long term. ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Therefore I would write the first sentence as "Brave is an adjective referring to bravery or courage" -- and move warriors elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Am aware that at least is Slavic languages there is a common practice to call categories of elite warriors by some synonyms of "braves" "courageous", and there is a vice-versa linguistic process: bashibozouk, berserker, etc. But Usually this happens with self-naming, and I find it hard to believe that "injuns" were commonly called "braves" by non-native Americans, but for romantic writers (Heck, even here I see problem: I don't recall Fenimore Cooper used the term "the braves"; but I was reading this stuff 60 years ago :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DABCOMMON says:
"In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below. See Mojave or Mercury for examples of this."
The examples currently say "most often refers to". Disambiguation pages are not articles and don't have references. I think it's OK for a disambiguation page to say "most often/commonly refers to", but common sense and often page views should be used. Braves (Native Americans) is clearly wrong and should be moved down. User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js adds the link Massviews on Brave. The most viewed is Atlanta Braves but Braves redirects there and few people will search it as "Brave". If there is a "most often" part then it should list Courage, Brave (web browser) and Brave (2012 film). Courage has much fewer views but "brave" very often refers to it in English. It's just not something many people read about in an encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, objection. References, no references, but all information in Wikipedia is subject to WP:V. If there is no ref, just don't use this expression at all. If there are "unclassified" items on top, this is a wikipedians' decision, and in fact it is.
  • My common sense tells me that only overwhelmingly more common usage must be on top. The rest must be in "classifieds".
  • We do have disambig pages with many adjectives or verbs, especially when math/physics or other science is involved, e.g. smooth. However this is not the case, and I am repeating my suggection to treat courage as a dicdef for "brave", rathwer than a separate independent item, because it is the base meaning of all listed meanings. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree: few readers will look up an adjective in an encyclopedia, so the reader searching for "brave" is unlikely to be using the adjectival sense of it. In everyday conversation the most common use of "brave" is probably the synonym for "courageous", but Primary Topic reflects what a reader is likely to be looking for in the encyclopedia. PamD 06:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Seconded: in WP, to ease the navigation, the "primary topic" is what is commonly searched, not commonly used.
Indeed. See Large. Certes (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the clickstream data for the dab page for March, effectively showing how many times each link on the dab page was followed (ignoring links with fewer than 10 hits for the month): 

Brave   Courage                 link    36
Brave   The_Brave_(TV_series)   link    72
Brave   The_Brave_(film)        link    99
Brave   Braves_(Native_Americans)       link    123
Brave   Hyphen-minus    other   13
Brave   Brave_(1994_film)       link    40
Brave   Brave_(web_browser)     link    789
Brave   Brave_(Marillion_album) link    25
Brave   Brave_(Sara_Bareilles_song)     link    46
Brave   Brave_(2012_film)       link    853
Brave   Brave_(2014_film)       link    17

Some conclusions that can be drawn from here: the "most commonly refers to" section at the top should probably be changed; a primary topic for Courage is likely to be of use to a vanishingly small proportion of readers; and there is a case for the redirect Brave (film) to be retargeted away from the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Another way is to add supersections "Brave" and "Braves" into [Brave] dab, to simplify navigation. It is inconvenient to jump across pages, esp. in mobile device browsers, which, as I see are very commonly used today. BTW, can we get stats for this, similar to the above?
This resectioning can be done right now, without disrupting the current discussion, what do you think? Lembit Staan (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
What stats do you refer to? The familiar aggregate pageviews [7] can be broken down by desktop and mobile (just select "Platform" from the options on the right left hand side), but that's probably not what you had in mind. – Uanfala (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that's what I exactly had in mind, thx for the hint. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sunday Sun (song)

What should we do with Sunday Sun (song)? Redirecting to a set index of newspapers (with a couple of musical interludes) doesn't seem ideal. Redirects Sunday Sun (Beck song) and Sunday Sun (Neil Diamond song) exist. I've fixed the sole incoming link. Certes (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a set index anymore. Problem solved.
<rant> I've never understood the purpose of WP:SIA and I'm still of opinion that they should be killed with fire. How, conceptually, "List of bars named Foo" differs from "Foo (disambiguation)" and why it has a certain "encyclopedic value" as opposed to being a mere "navigation aid" continues to escape me.</rant> No such user (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've dabified the page. Set indices may have their place when the existence of something that doesn't merit an article is notable, but 0% of links to "[The] Sunday Sun" will refer to all papers and songs of that title collectively. Also, the <rant> tag is going on my wishlist. Certes (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@No such user: If I am not mistaken, SIA pages were first suggested for long lists of minor villages with "typical names", some of which pop up in wikipedia articles, but nobody knows where the are. per WP:DAB they cannot be listed in the disambig pages, but such lists are useful for information search. A bit later they found their usage for minor ships with same names (or vice versa). Lembit Staan (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So typically, rather than adapting the rules for certain kinds of disambiguation pages and/or their entries, Wikipedians invented a whole new class of articles with their own set of rules. Including silly ones such as permitting links to SIAs (who would ever want to do that?); or disallowing creation of {{R to disambiguation page}} redirects for them (cuz they're "not disambiguation"; I recall a recent failed RfC aimed to permit those).
For example, Bayevo is a typical Russian village SIA. It looks like a disambiguation page and quacks like a disambiguation page, except it does not follow the (arbitrary) dab rules of "no red links" and "one blue link per entry". However a more common name such as Bely is a proper disambiguation page, and if you want a Russian village you have to navigate once more to Bely, Russia which is a SIA and follows SIA rules, instead of everything consolidated on a single dab. Ridiculous. No such user (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Given enough people, we'd review and divert all links to SIAs. Another project addresses a small part of the problem by monitoring new links to pages which are denied access to disambiguation tools because their entries have something in common, such as Ministry of Defence, and fixing them as they arise. However, there simply isn't enough labour available to mend them all. Certes (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is there are a HUGE number of pages in, e.g, category:Set indices on populated places in Russia, and to get rid of them would require an inordinate amount of time. A possible solution is given in WP:NGEO: merge smaller geographilac features into a larger one, so that in the given example Bely, Russia, for an item "*Bely, Krasnodar Krai, a khutor in Temryuksky District of Krasnodar Krai", create a list of populated places in Temryuksky District and list khutor Bely in it, turning the redlink into a redirect. However when I tries to do this for Bely, Russia, I immediately run into a major problem which plagues nearly all Russia SIA articles: violatiolation of WP:Verifiability: I cannt add Bely into Temryuksky simply because I have no idea if it exists.
Therefore I am inclined to nuke 'em all and mercilessly delete all redlinks not backlinked in wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ezhiki: As I see, you seem to have created many of these. What's your say? Especially in the issue of verifiability. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Every single entry you'll see on those pages is verifiable. The project is work in progress, so some pages are better developed than others. The ultimate goal was to bring all SIAs to the quality of Alexandrovka, Russia, where each section is referenced to a source, and each entry can additionally be verified via the supplied coordinates. Nuking all this work because we don't have manpower to continue the project would be counterproductive beyond measure.
I'm happy to reference any individual page where valid concerns exists (some may very well be out of date; it's been a while), but in the past few years I had no time to devote to this project for real-life reasons, so I simply cannot magically fix it all overnight in bulk. Few others are interested in this (very highly specialized) topic. That in no way invalidates the groundwork laid so far; the topic is without doubt encyclopedic and should be covered. Eventually everything will be up to snuff, and since Wikipedia is not on any kind of deadline, that "eventually" might very well happen to be beyond both of our life spans (Russia, as you might be aware, is a somewhat large country, with a lot of poorly covered geography). If we start going around nuking unfinished work because we don't know how to handle it, that's like shooting ourselves in the foot. Let's maybe find a more productive way to deal with it. Stuff is easy to organize when all the links are blue, but the caveat is that sometimes you have to resort to things like SIA in order to know where to even start painting the seas of red.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2021; 22:35 (UTC)
My main concern is that someone editing an article such as Second Battle of Kharkov will add a link to Alexandrovka, Russia and feel that their work is done. DPL bot won't prompt the editor to be more precise, because the link leads to an article rather than a dab. Certes (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I would certainly be against nuking those – these lists are carefully curated and perhaps even more useful than the typical village substubs. But I would like to treat them as (equivalent of) disambiguation pages, with DPL bot preventing linking to them except via (disambiguation) redirects. Can anyone point me to the RfC concerning mandatory (?) creation of those redirects, if you know what I mean? It was about a year ago and I saw it in passing, but it failed and I did not even !vote on it, and I don't even know where to look (Village pump, wikipedia talk). No such user (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
"Carefully curated" is false statement: most of them are unreferenced. All info in WP must be verifiable, and obscure things, such as Russian manors (khutors, most certainly must be referenced, and this concerns lists and other "non-article" mainspace pages. Sure, I trust Ëzhiki he knows Russia, but suppose he makes a typo or cut-and-paste error... Lembit Staan (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Category:Set indices on ships isn't limited to minor ships; all the ships named HMS Ark Royal were large, and several are distinctly famous.
I don't think I've looked at a single page of the 1,975 in Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia which did not have at least one ambiguous in-link - and I've only looked at one when trying to find a clue to solving a nearby DABfixing problem. (Russian WP badly underlinks placenames, and is rarely an immediate help.) Iran is another country notorious for recycling place names, see e.g. Saadatabad, and manages perfectly well with {{geodis}} pages. Narky Blert (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Baker and Christopher Baker

The disambiguation page for Chris Baker/Christopher Baker has gotten lost in some recent edits - I made some feeble attempts to fix the situation, got confused, and came here for assistance. I'm not sure if the DAB page should be at Chris Baker or Christopher Baker, but they both currently redirect to Christopher R. Baker. Leschnei (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, not all people who go by Chris are actually called Christopher. So I reckon we either need both, or just Chris. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This seems to have happened:
Now we need to:
That will need an admin's help. Certes (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I second that. Now, what kind of admin request this would be? It involves two Admin actions: splitting page history so that the top part of it goes into draft space and revert of the move. I will try WP:ANI#Help undo a complicated messing with a disambig page by a noob, to see if anyone is willing to lend a hand or to give an advice. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done Relatively straightforward. Dab page back where it was, redirect retargeted, and new edits moved to draftspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Leschnei (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

DAB pages with (qualified) titles

The bot which populates Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles picks up {{dab}} pages (e.g. Chemistry (journal)), but not {{hndis}} (e.g. Celia (footballer), which I've just categorised manually). Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hootenanny

There is a merge discussion on Hootenanny that could use some eyes. How often do you get to work on such a fun word? Leschnei (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Tiberius Claudius Nero

This article had a Short Description that said it was a DAB, but wasn't tagged as such and had a comment that said it wasn't (apparently so it didn't have to follow MOS:DAB). It was recently turned into a formal DAB and extensively shortened. I think which version is most useful should be discussed (as well as the title and PT issues). Notification to involved editors: Avilich, @*Treker:. MB 14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The editspace comment about it not being formally a DAB was because an editor a decade ago tried to turn this into a prosopographical list by adding more comments and some sources. This was unnecessary, since the previous revision added nothing which the individual articles alone did not already cover, and ambiguous titles should by all rights have a corresponding dab page. The non-linked entries are already covered here. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks like a standard hndis to me, though I'd add at least a "See also" link to Claudii Nerones which has DABMENTIONs of other meanings of the title. Certes (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I endorse Avilich's action in turning this into an hndis page; and the similar action on Lucius Julius Caesar (which resulted in an article), and any similar cleanup. Many Roman gentes were praenominally-challenged, choosing from only half-a-dozen, to the confusion of historians. The place to sort that out is on the page about the gens.
BTW, does anyone know how to edit a Central description? The one on Lucius Julius Caesar (proquaestor) is hopelessly wrong - he was about a fourth cousin of Mark Antony, and was a first cousin once removed of Julius Caesar. i doubt whether even the latter would be a worthwhile description; "follower of Pompey" would be better. Narky Blert (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You need to edit on Wikidata, but the central description of him there is actually correct Avilich (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wheat gluten#Requested move 6 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wheat gluten#Requested move 6 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_51&oldid=1045337426"